Ok, if you are familiar, please explain to me a scenario in which warrantless 12333 collection would (a) collect on US persons in the US (b) unmask their identities pursuant to Obama’s EO which relates to raw 12333 collection and (c) be called “lawful” collection by Sean Spicer. I mean, Rep. Nunes. Those guys are indistinguishable to me.
(a)
- The interception is in the US
- It is a wireless communication
- One party is foreign, the other is US person
- The target is not a US person
(b) “raw” collection can be filtered/searched through all kinds of computer programs, once you have access to it
(c) the 12333 collection may have been “lawful”. The dissemination definitely wasn’t. Someone who gained access to it due to Obama’s order likely has disseminated it, since that EO definitely hugely increased the universe of people who had access to it.
What got Trump’s goat was not that he/his people were surveilled, but that the info was disseminated. If it wasn’t, Trump wouldn’t even know about the surveillance.
I would definitely react in the same irate manner if I found out that my conversations with someone abroad were widely disseminated with my name attached.
If you are not the target of surveillance, you’re not under surveillance. Above, you seem to acknowledge this and with the comment that you’d love to see the Democrats split this hair.
I’m splitting this hair. Since you know the difference, will you now disavow your claim that Trump and his campaign were under surveillance?
No, I’d love to see them split this hair on the news. Publicly. Loudly. Will be fun to watch. “There was surveillance of Trump, but he was not under surveillance.”
Cue audience laughter.
Is Nunes really stupid enough to think that “the names of Trump team members weren’t properly redacted” is somehow more important than “Trump team members were in active conversations with foreign agents and/or criminals”? Or even the fact that he, as committee chairman, has compromised ongoing investigations and national security? There’s no way he can be allowed to continue to work with intelligence matters, right? Has there ever been a worst “own goal” in politics?
How is that evidence for surveillance on the part of Obama? What does that have to do with Trump’s tweet, or the EO?
Where is the evidence of surveillance of Trump? Why do you keep making claims with no evidence?
-
You asked for evidence of dissemination. That was evidence of dissemination.
-
Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador was recorded during Obama’s term of office. Most probably by a US agency, that was part of Obama administration - since it was leaked by “intelligence officials” to the media.
The “splitting of hairs” was in response to DSeid’s statement.
So under this scenario, a person involved with the Trump campaign was communicating by shortwave radio or satellite communications with an agent of a foreign power?
Jesus Christ, that’s the most smoking gun evidence of foreign collusion of the Trump campaign that would have come out so far.
Seems clear that we should declassify these intercepts immediately and let the chips fall where they may. Do you agree? Trump could do this with the stroke of a pen.
I asked for evidence of surveillance.
You said “yes they were” in post 515, about surveillance.
Cell phone.
It’s wired with wireless components.
I think a comment at the Talking Points Memo (where a lot of coments also do point out how Nunes is an incompetent at his job.) makes a very good point:
Sorry that you misunderstand my comment so completely.
That portion of my comment was moving on beyond whatever and whoever it was that was under surveillance that led to whatever was recorded incidentally according Nunes while aiming for someone else, to state that there may have even been other surveillance done OF Trump’s team by the FBI regarding Russia’s meddling and possible collusion by those in the Trump orbit. If so that would not count as Obama ordering wiretapping or even ordering monitoring of Trump and Trump Tower. It would be the FBI doing the job they are supposed to do, independent of the President.
That there be no fine hair, y’hear? We clear?
But what Nunes is talking about, the specifics of which he has not shared with those on the committee across the aisle, is not even that.
If while investigating another crime by use of surveillance evidence pertinent to another “case” is incidentally discovered the subject of the other case was under surveillance … think the emails found on Weiner’s computer. They were not found as a result of investigation of HRC but were found incidentally. Now in HRC’s case the information turned out to be nothing that was anything. In this one? We don’t know.
Which people of foreign nationality being monitored for what potential criminal activity were those of Trump’s orbit and possibly Trump (according to Nunes) in communication with? What was being said?
I’d love to see you admit that you were wrong when you said that Trump or his campaign were under surveillance. That would be fun to watch.
Not gonna happen.
Because the story hasn’t been fully flushed out yet. Despite your best wishes and attempts, it will.
I can’t wait.
Are you fucking serious? Trump’s tweets were ALL about Obama ordering surveillance on him.
Or do you somehow have a 1920’s-style death ray that as a side effect is able to read Trump’s mind?
No, you really don’t want to know. But please, agitate all you want to have it published.
I can’t wait.